That was clearly wrong. There must of been some times when she worked a day. But quite frankly I find it hard to believe that anyone with that much money is scrubbing the toilets and cleaning the house day in and day out. Much ado about the obvious and missing the point.

that's how the Chicago con man does it. He keeps his hands publicly clean. He has minions that throw out these attacks and then claims ignorance. His whole game is that he believes that the public is to stupid to connect the dots. I guess he's right to an extent. I can only pray that Dems keep self destructing and that the public wakes up and realizes that all he does is lie. He has many followers that believe that the wealthy and that corps are evil. Heck, he even has them believing that Buffet wants to pay more taxes. Buffet is currently in proceedings to stop the feds from collecting a very large tax bill from him......hmmmmm

So it's more concerning that a democrat strategist said Romney's wife never worked as opposed to when someone directly affiliated with Romney's campaign essentially says that Romney will change his position on key issues after the primaries are over (equating it to an Etch-a-Sketch)?

No, Romney sucks through and through, hell I have a big book that McCain published regarding all of Romney's bad policy, but the truth is he will be way better than Obama..

I would vote for my left shoe before I would vote for Obama... my shoe has soul, minds its tongue, and is generally useful...

We keep talking about all this made up crap, lets talk about the unemployment, lets talk about the national debt, lets talk about what we are going to do when this false economy fails... I don't give a rats behind about Trayvon, Ann Romney, the war on women, contraception, or any other BS that the media is waving in front of me...

change his position....
Obama was caught on tape off camera several times saying things that are contrary to what he says on camera. Romney will at least have to somewhat behave for 4 years. Obama will have a blank check to continue making ends around congress, senate, high courts...etc.....
How about the latest funneling of millions of dollar to the IRS to help them enforce his illegal Obamacare. Without the approval from congress

Romney running for governor: Gay marriage okay. Romney running for president: No gay marriage.
Romney running for governor: Gun control advocate. Romney running for president: Give speech for NRA.
Romney running for governor: Pro-Choice. Romney running for president: Pro-Life
Romney as governor: Romneycare. Romney running for president: Anti-Obamacare (which is very close to Romneycare). This is the issue that will sink his chances.

Of course, let's predict how this pans out. Romney far right until after the convention, Romney back to the middle for the general election campaign. I don't think it matters. Romney has little hope of getting elected.

Sam, or I guess it's Tucker now, it looks like you are well on your way on becoming a flip-flopping politician. I recall early in the GOP primaries you saying you would vote for Obama before you would vote for Mitt or Newt (I am pretty sure you said Newt).

lets see, Obama caught on tape basically admitting that he will do whatever he wants after election. Even if public doesn't agree. He was elected on a platform of change. The public wanted change. No close door meetings, no Washington BS business as usual. It did change, it got worse. I think he needs removed just on that alone.
You and I will differ. I really don't feel like "fighting" with you. I don't know you well enough to not like you, so I will leave the 30 million replies back and forth to those that share my beliefs.

I will say that I find it scary that you seemingly, blindly support Obama. None of the GOP are who I wanted. I really wanted Jindal and a couple of others to run. Oh well.
Like it's been said before, If Obama wins, in four years things will be so bad that everyone will be so pissed off that things really will change.

I'll actually vote for Gary Johnson because it won't hurt Romney's chances here in AZ, he will take AZ on the LDS vote alone. If Johnson can get 5% of the total vote then the Libertarian Party will get matching funds thereafter.

Either way though Obama won't be able to do anything, with republicans in control of the house and senate it'll be gridlock, as designed.

BTW, this flip-flopping politician will be the guy pulling the lever, actually doing something... While you're busy pontificating from your thown of wisdom, I'll actually be doing something... So say what ever you want, my side wins, and I get what I want... Conservative representation in the state government.

Of course none of the stuff being argued here amounts to a rat's ass of concern to me.

1) Gay Marriage, not an issue.
2) Gun control, not an issue.
3) Pro-choice, not an issue.
4) Obamacare, an issue but neither side is really on the right track.
5) Obama saying what he did on tape, superfulous information as I already know that he's paralyzed by the GOP interpreting any action as a negative, so... not an issue.

Even though gun control, pro choice, and gun control are non-issues for me, a party that makes them an issue get a negative strike.

There is a reason why this country must become more and more socialist. BTW, this is incorrect use of the word socialist, but I'll stick with the meaning that conservatives have invented. The liberals are right and the conservatives are wrong for one simple reason. The reason is because none of the public including you guys understand the market and economic forces that dictate a socialist path given that we elect our leaders and don't want to face the restrictions that would allow us to be conservative.

1) Govt must take on increasing responsibility for the heathcare of the people because govt is driving up healthcare costs. Shifting tax revenue from the govt to the HI insurance industry is overinflating healthcare in the same way easy money overinflated the housing market.

2) The trade deficit of over 1/2 trillion is depleting our economy and removing job opportunities for people of lessor levels of education and ability.

3) Defined benefit pension plans force the govt to bail out Wall Street as well as shift tax revenue to Wall Street through retirement contribution deductions. If the govt doesn't use any means at it's disposal to prop up stock prices then these fiscally irresponsible defined benefit plans will crush the govt in future pension liability. The huge amount of money steered to Wall Street is enriching people who produce nothing

If the govt doesn't become more socialist then the economic situation will decline further and those who espouse socialist policies will be voted in. Which brings up the following...

Ironically those who angrily ignore reality and want to cut everyone off with the "Every man for himself" philosophy are steering this country towards socialism even faster. This is because these people are unable to grasp that many of the policies they have no problem with are causing economic problems and people of lessor means to be marginalized and left out. Because they cannot see the big economic policy picture and are unable to debate in a sensible way they are cast as crackpots and seen as a force to be countered. The growing disenfranchised majority will vote in more "socialism". IOW, if you want your opinions to sway the opposite side, you must acknowledge their problems, why they exist (other than the simplistic... get a better job), and offer solutions.

If you want people to get better jobs, then you need to stand behind policies that create better jobs. And that doesn't mean filling this country with products produced by labor that lives below our standard of living. If you want a free market then you are going to have to give up tax breaks for things like pensions and heath insurance. You need to endure the difficult transition to a free market and stick to identifying the real economic factors that have screwed up our economy and not just all the ones that you think don't benefit you.

The GOP is offering nothing in this election. They are the worst of the Democratic party with an extra layer of fail.

There is something to be said for 4 years of so bad that everyone will be pissed off. I wanted Obamacare in because I hoped it would turn healthcare on it's head. But instead it was just a favor to the HI/HC industry that is basically just as consistent as the GOP giving favors to industry. Now I hope it is shot down by the SC. It has become more apparent over time that we have to have it really bad to even open our eyes to the real problem. It doesn't matter much to me who wins the election. I know in my heart that the GOP is only pandering to morons with these social issues during the election and then when they win (hypothetically because it isn't going to happen) it will be backroom business as usual, and the social issues will be just eye candy with no real substance.

I agree with some of what you are saying, John, but there is still hope. I see some much needed trimming of the "fat “coming. Tax relief, a strong dollar, and a possible repeal or at least a remaking of the health care bill, in addition to some committee changes, are possible. To me, the Rosen comment demonstrates a total disrespect and resentment toward anyone who has worked hard enough to have acquired any wealth. IMHO, the stay-at-home mom plays a valuable role in our society. Anyone can work at a job, but to have people available to volunteer at schools, hospitals, and raise money for charities is just as important. I say her comment against Ann Romney is an important issue because it reflects her party’s attitude of the stay-at-home mom—out of touch, spoiled, and pampered—so if we take your money, it’s okay. Also, reinstating class warfare may win the election but the working class may end up paying the bill.

I can't comment on the meaning what Rosen said because I have no familiarity of her. But I would say that your description of the Democratic party's attitude about stay at home moms isn't inline with all aspects of reality. When society requires more women to get a job for the family to stay afloat, it's a mistake for a rich stay at home mom to be held up as the example of being in touch with women.

You are absolutely right about the stay at home mom being important to society. So if being a stay at home mom is a virtue, then mothers forced to work to make ends meet are deprived of the right to exibit this virtue. Not a great idea to throw that in their face by holding up someone extremely rich as representing them.

If the point was to insult Romney's wife then that was wrong. If the point was to insult the idea of her representing women who work hard and struggle, then it was correct.

I found this comment from a mother of four on another web page. "What Hilary Rosen was really saying was that Ann Romney is so rich that she could not relate to the economic fears of most women, whether they are work-at-home moms or work-outside-the-home moms. However, Hilary, of course, can relate to these 'everyday women,' being a single lesbian mom with live-in help who earns more than a million dollars a year as a democratic strategist and talking head, as well as lobbying. The lobbying firm she works for helped put Napster out of business and kept BP oil in business – wonder what her liberal friends would think of those alliances? And THAT, in my opinion, is what galls this mother of four who has been both a stay-at-home mom, a dual breadwinner and a primary breadwinner, the most. The sheer hypocrisy of left and the way they try to use women and minorities by posing as the party that 'feels their pain' when they are so removed from the lives of most Americans as to be comical.

Laker, That sounds like a conservative trying hard to make a point that's lost on me. I'm a male and I don't see that it's appropriate to use a rich women as an example of someone that can relate to a struggling woman taking care of a family. Does being a male disqualify me from saying that? I don't think so. So Rosen being a wealthy woman shouldn't disqualify her from saying it unless she's saying she is an example of someone that can relate.

Being a liberal or seen as a liberal doesn't define all of a person's beliefs. I'm frequently labeled a liberal, but I have no problem with corporations being in business. The cornerstone of Napster's business was enabling the theft of music. Who can fault people for being against that? I use gas so I don't feel the need to see BP go out of business.

I do believe there is hypocrisy in politics on both sides of the aisle. The govt is rife with hypocrisy, deception, and lies. It's obvious that the political process is full of hypocrisy. Throw a dart left or right and you will find it. In general people either lack intellectual honesty or are puppet mastered by people who lack intellectual honesty. Nobody in govt at the top can feel the pain of the poor. But using that as a criteria for whether or not they can paid attention to them doesn't make any sense. Who can represent them if doing so is hypocrisy?

The bottom line is that Romney is being attacked in meaningless ways to appeal to a segment of votes in the same way Obama is attacked. It's the standard business of politics and each side is fighting to be the best at it. An independant thinker will look at the real issues to decide who to vote for. Unfortunately if you look at the real issues you will see that neither side is going to alter the course of the economy in any significantly different way. The USA is a huge lumbering elephant steered by money and special interests.

The only defining criteria between the two are a few big philosophical issues. More military or less. More education or less. Lower taxes on high earnings or more. More freedom to polute and make some jobs or less and protect the environment. Neither side is espousing anything that will fix the economy or change the debt. They just want you to believe they are. I don't believe for a second that either party wants more freedom for the individual or has any desire to protect our rights. They just want to find more ways to control us.

"I don't believe for a second that either party wants more freedom for the individual or has any desire to protect our rights. They just want to find more ways to control us. " That's why voters need to wade through the "muck" and find candidates who are not afraid to go against the grain and that starts from the bottom up.

^So honestly, do you believe Romney is going to be a president that will "go against the grain"? Let's be honest here, going against the grain will ensure that your reelection chances are null. And how many politicians do you see that are running for office for only one term? If you go against the GOP grain (say you argue for more gun control, for example, or to raise taxes) you will be met with an onslaught of people looking for anyway to get you out of office. It's the same type of scenario on the Democratic side. Money and reelection viability controls lawmakers' decisions, not what is best for the American people. It's a casualty of living in a capitalistic society.

I finally have to agree with both Jeremy and John! woo hoo!
The biggest difference for me is: Obama was elected on the platform of change. He hasn't changed politics as usual. In fact, he is more secretive, more distracting and more dishonest than the usual.

and

The bigger point: Since we can agree that no politician in sight is going to effect real change, we at least ought to keep voting those out that add to the deep hole that has been dug.

I firmly believe that Obama and the DNC orchestrate these types of distractions so that the public forgets to talk or think about his awful record. Unemployment for women, in this case, is considerably higher now than it was 4 years ago. Therefore, the Dems, orchestrate the illusion that the Repubs have a women problem so that no one is talking about how it's the Dems that have the problem with women.

I also find it humorous that there is all the talk about millionaires when almost every member of congress is a millionaire. Oh its not us, its the other guy over there......

and the Buffet rule. What a joke. Raising those taxes of those few won't do anything but help get Obama elected. That's all this whole thing is about. Personally, if I were a democrat, I'd be offended that they thought I was that gullible. Buffet, by the way, is fighting the IRS to avoid paying taxes

there again......ot's the dems that say the repubs are deceitful and lying.....bahahaha

None of your logic really speaks to me Cliff. First of all I do not think the GOP will stop the hole digging. Second, the hole digging is just to keep the economy treading water. So I really don't fault Obama in that respect. The issue with Dems being gullible and making an issue of the women demographic on jobs doesn't fly as there was no policy that I know of that targeted getting women laid off.

The rate of increase of unemployment was fairly steep when Obama was sworn in and there were taxpayer financed policies for rescuing a few industries and the financial markets already in place at that time. Obama really had no significant radical policies and he carried on business as usual. Yes, he failed on the promise of change. But there is nothing to point to that shows Obama was a negative unless you believe that the amount of stability and recovery that occurred could have without the deficit spending. And I do not believe that.

Politics is like a football game. We observers have no control over the players or the game plan. We just pick a team, root for it, and insult the opposing team. There is no real substance behind what we do other than the joy of being on the winning side.

“So honestly, do you believe Romney is going to be a president that will ‘go against the grain"’? He may repeal health care, which is against the grain, I guess, but what I was trying to say is change starts with your local representation. The change has to come from the local level up, not top down.

“'They were not easy years. You have to understand, I was raised in a lovely neighborhood, as was Mitt, and at BYU, we moved into a $62-a-month basement apartment with a cement floor and lived there two years as students with no income.

“'It was tiny. And I didn’t have money to carpet the floor. But you can get remnants, samples, so I glued them together, all different colors. It looked awful, but it was carpeting.

“'We were happy, studying hard. Neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time.

“'The stock came from Mitt’s father. When he took over American Motors, the stock was worth nothing. But he invested Mitt’s birthday money year to year — it wasn’t much, a few thousand, but he put it into American Motors because he believed in himself. Five years later, stock that had been $6 a share was $96 and Mitt cashed it so we could live and pay for education.

“'Mitt and I walked to class together, shared housekeeping, had a lot of pasta and tuna fish and learned hard lessons.'

“'We had our first child in that tiny apartment. We couldn’t afford a desk, so we used a door propped on sawhorses in our bedroom. It was a big door, so we could study on it together. And we bought a portable crib, took the legs off and put it on the desk while we studied. I had a baby sitter during class time, but otherwise, I’d hold my son on my lap while I studied.

“'The funny thing is that I never expected help. My father had become wealthy through hard work, as did Mitt’s father, but I never expected our parents to take care of us. They’d visit, laugh and say, "We can’t believe you guys are living like this." They’d take us out to dinner, have a good time, then leave.

“'We stayed till Mitt graduated in 1971, and when he was accepted at Harvard Law, we came east. He was also accepted at Harvard Business School as part of a joint program that admits 25 a year, so he was getting degrees from Harvard Law and Business schools at the same time.

“'Remember, we’d been paying $62 a month rent, but here, rents were $400, and for a dump. This is when we took the now-famous loan that Mitt talks about from his father and bought a $42,000 home in Belmont, and you know? The mortgage payment was less than rent. Mitt saw that the Boston market was behind Chicago, LA and New York. We stayed there seven years and sold it for $90,000, so we not only stayed for free, we made money. As I said, Mitt’s very bright.

“'Another son came along 18 months later, although we waited four years to have the third, because Mitt was still in school and we had no income except the stock we were chipping away at. We were living on the edge, not entertaining. No, I did not work. Mitt thought it was important for me to stay home with the children, and I was delighted.

“'Right after Mitt graduated in 1975, we had our third boy and it was about the time Mitt’s first paycheck came along. So, we were married a long time before we had any income, about five years as struggling students.

Stark told The Huffington Post, "That's why I'm introducing the WORK Act to provide low-income parents the option of staying home to raise young children without fear of being pushed into poverty." Exactly, and how does this help the middle class women who have to work in order to support themseves and pay taxes?

Obviously, the rich can take of themselves. The poor get cell phones, food, housing, and now may be rewarded for staying home, so what about the working-class women? To me, instead of raising taxes on the rich, the gov. should lower taxes on the middle class and work to help us. If Bowles-Simpson is implemented, and with the Dodd Frank act kicking in full force, the middle class will lose some tax reductions and could see an increase of fees. These acts largely effect the middle class. Rant over.

If you're middle class then why can't you afford to have a stay at home mom? My wife never worked when our kids were young. And the tax deductions for a married couple are pretty darn good. It hardly made any sense for her to work as her income got tacked onto the highest tax bracket. It's the single people who are getting hit with huge taxes. Raising taxes on the high earners and lowering on the middle class is not mutually exclusive. The middle class has been paying for a long time that 15% fica premium that the puppet masters always ignore when talking about taxes.

She did when the kids were young. I guess I'm not making my point. The point is anything that is mentioned about taxes is either about the two extremes--the rich or the poor. To me, neither party is focusing on the real problems of the middle class because they are too busy insulting each other, and most of the middle class are too busy to realize how much we may be about to pay.

Too late for that. Our dear Republican medicare defrauding governor pandered to the home insurance industry after his election and my home insurance rates went up 50% this year. My health insurance doubled when I put my wife on. When she got her own insurance last month my rate went down only 20%. I'd love to go outside work and competitive shop for a higher deductible policy but our lovely govt will hand me a 40% tax penalty if I live my employer's plan and pursue my own. IOW, I either pay for my employers HI @ $1200/mo, or I pay the govt $500/mo and then the remaining $700 can be used to find alternative coverage.

We are insulting each other because we can't agree on what to do about anything.

Wow! No wonder you don't like Republicans. What makes you think the governor caused your rates to go up? You are the type of person, similar to me, who is lost in the rhetoric. Nobody seems to care about the working man. One side works to reward the poor and the other offers some help to the middle. BTY, I was thinking that the tax break married couples now receive and the some type of child tax benefit--I can't remember what it's call--fall under the Bush Tax cuts.

When Rick Scott got into office the first thing in the papers was a big hubbub about how he was loosing the regulation in the home insurance industry and the next thing you know my home insurance goes up 50%. Married couple have always gotten a significant tax break over the single. Not sure what changes went into place with Bush.

The reason why the rhetoric is nothing but cheering is because the real policies that affect the economy and individuals aren't even on the table for discussion. Both sides are pretty much the same wrt the big picture. Pretty much most poltical discussion is a joke.

^John hit the nail on the head with his last two sentences. That's why I am so amazed at people that actually believe things will be so much better (or even noticeably different) if Romney was to win. Despite what Romney has said in the past year, he is a moderate. Just like W was a moderate, just like Bush Sr. was a moderate, just like, no matter what Rush and Hannity say, Reagan was a moderate. If you look back in history, when was the last time we had a "conservative" or "liberal" president? Overwhelmingly, Americans always tend to pick a "middle of the road" president.

When Rick Scott got into office the first thing in the papers was a big hubbub about how he was loosing the regulation in the home insurance industry and the next thing you know my home insurance goes up 50%. Married couple have always gotten a significant tax break over the single. Not sure what changes went into place with Bush.

The reason why the rhetoric is nothing but cheering is because the real policies that affect the economy and individuals aren't even on the table for discussion. Both sides are pretty much the same wrt the big picture. Pretty much most poltical discussion is a joke.

But the real problem is the jokes on us.If we actually think we[the people] have any say in what goes on in business as usual land.[D.C.]

But the real problem is the jokes on us.If we actually think we[the people] have any say in what goes on in business as usual land.[D.C.]

As the supremes made clear anybody can have a say in washington. If you have more $$$ you just have a bigger say. It's just so frustrating that all of the communists and socialist elite and liberal media are so intent on giving their money away that they can balance out the true believers who want to reduce the size of government (except the military, which needs to GROW).